I started the following article before the horrible January jobs report from the Labor Department was released Friday, January 10. After several modestly encouraging months in a row, analysts were expecting the January report to reveal another month of steady  if not robust  new job numbers. News jobs averaged 214,000 for the last four months. But, Obama's Labor Department found only 74,000 new jobs were created in December  barely one-third of expectations.

There was more bad news; 347,000 people walked away, left the workforce entirely in a month when the total population increased by 178,000. The Labor Force Participation Rate (the measure of how many people have a job or are looking for one) fell back to just 62.8% matching a 35 year low.

Obama's current talking points about the economy call for 2014 to be "a year of action." What's he been doing the last five years?

After three successive tries at a "summer of recovery" that turned into another "winter of discontent," now the President says he is really going to get serious. Hopefully, he isn't planning more of the same kind of "action" that we've had for the last five years. That hasn't turned out so well.

As for the recovery, "which is real," the President feels compelled to remind us, the following will provide a wealth of evidence that Obama's policies have resulted in an economic funk. Now in its 56th month, there are ominous signs that the end is still not in sight for Obama's non-recovering recovery, including the newest jobs report.

When compared to other post-recession eras the great American economy should have completed recovery and moved into an era of expansion long before now, as the data provided below indicates. That the President has to implore us to believe his recovery is "real" is a confession that it is far from obvious to anyone else, and anything but real.

Now, on to the rest of what I had originally planned to share about the tenuous nature of Obama's non-recovering recovery. I like pictures, charts, and graphs. Maybe I'm more of a visual guy than a verbal one, but they often tell a big story in a very tangible way for me.

The battle du jour on Capitol Hill is about extending long-term unemployment benefits, aka: Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC). This would be the twelfth time since 2008 soon after the recession began. Politicians have major anxiety attacks opposing such program extensions knowing they'll be branded as "heartless" in the upcoming election cycle.

Some Republicans are trying to find a "safe harbor" insisting the extended benefits  estimated at $6.4 billion  need to be "paid for" by spending reductions elsewhere in the budget. That should be child's play given the state of federal budget  but, don't hold your breath that it will actually happen.

As the saga plays out, it's instructive to put the current EUC program in context relative to previous "temporary" programs enacted during recessions. The following is from an October 30, 2013 statement by Rep. Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee:

The current EUC program already has served up about 10 times as many weeks of Federal extended benefits as the most recent program that operated in the wake of the 2001 recession and terror attacks, and nearly six times as many weeks as the program that ran from 1991 through 1994. That's just through July 2013, with tens of millions more weeks of checks to be added before the EUC program's expiration in December 2013. EUC's $252 billion in spending through July also dwarfs any prior program  already spending $200 billion more than any recent program, in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Comparing the Last Four Federal Temporary Unemployment Benefit Programs

FSB (1982-1985)

EUC (1991-1994)

TEUC (2002-2004)

EUC08/EB* (2008-2013)

Total Recipients

8 million

9 million

8 million

24 million

Average Weeks of Benefits Per Recipient

10

17

12

38

Total Weeks Claimed

76 million

151 million

89 million

881 million

Total Benefits Paid (2013$)

$22 billion

$46 billion

$28 billion

$252 billion

*Through July 2013

Totals may not add due to rounding.

Chairman Camp also cites two independent research projects that demonstrate prolonged unemployment benefits actually hold down economic recovery and new job creation  precisely opposite of the Democrats talking points.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a new study identifies the EUC program as the cause of the painfully slow labor market recovery  as employers have withheld new job offers until after the Federal extended benefits program ends. Another study reinforces that such programs have been behind recent jobless recoveries.

Which leads to the big question that Obama and the Democrats cannot answer; Why is the economy still so very weak 4 ½ years into a supposed recovery?

Obama's economic policies have failed and the lack of trust and confidence in this Administration painfully prolonged prospects for a return to economic normalcy. For evidence we again turn to pictures.

One of the most damning indictments of Obama's policies is the following chart from a recentWashington Times feature story. Obama proudly announced from the Rose Garden that the recession had ended 55 months ago, "We've rescued our economy from catastrophe." If so, then why are there more Americans living in poverty today  about 50 million  than before the recession began.

Who is in charge in Washington, D. C.?
What single thing has he done that has fixed things?
What single thing has he done wrong?
Who has the power to over-ride the President?
Who has prevented him from fixing things?

The list:

Bush
House
Senate
Supreme Court
Military Branches of the United States
CIA Overseas
NSA Overseas
Traditional Allies of the Unites States
Wall Street
Bankers
Lenders
Corporations
Republicans
Tea Party Members
Gun Owners
Founders
Constitution
Red States
Rich People
Small Business Owners
Hospitals
Physicians
Insurance Companies
Unhealthy Food
Christians
People who don’t want homosexuality to be put on a par with heterosexuality
People who don’t want transsexuals to be put on a par with heterosexuals
People who don’t want the age of consent to be lowered
People who want the traditional family unit to remain strong and sacred
Capitalists

Poor Barack, so many people are against him.

Everyone knows, every president before him had everyone on their side.

3
posted on 01/11/2014 11:25:48 AM PST
by DoughtyOne
(ZERO is still zero, and John Kerry is a mock-puppet!)

If an economic downturn puts nearly or more than 25% of our working public out of work, and causes another 25% of our workers to work for much less than they were being paid prior to 2008, I’d say one would have to stretch their imagination quite to a bit, to imagine this is not a depression.

50% of our workforce has been devastated by the events of the last five years.

That’s no simple recession, I don’t care how they calculate such matters.

I’m not singling you out here. This is pretty much the perception that has been trotted out for consumption, and there are very few who object.

5
posted on 01/11/2014 11:30:29 AM PST
by DoughtyOne
(ZERO is still zero, and John Kerry is a mock-puppet!)

It not just him it's the entire Democrat party. Every F***in one of them.

Most of the Republican Party needs to go with them.

After the Nazis and the Confederates lost their respective wars they were banned from politics entirely. The Republican/Democrat Party has done more damage to this country than all the wars of the past century combined. I think every Republican/Democrat elected official, current and former, should be banned from politics for life, even the few good ones. It would be worth it to clean out the mass of horrible traitors.

6
posted on 01/11/2014 11:46:20 AM PST
by Count of Monte Fisto
(The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)

If change is going to come in our lifetime the two party system will have to be the mechanism. While there are crooks and RINO’s in the Republican party, the entire party hasn’t been consumed by the left. So I disagree with the Republican part of your statement and believe it can adapt and be taken over just like the left completely destroyed the Democrats in the wake of Watergate, the Democrat party can not be changed in any reasonable timeframe.

The leadership has. If the rank-n-file can't get rid of the leadership then they might as well be "of the left" as you put it. I look results, not intentions, and I see the results of GOP collusion with Democrats all around me.

I agree that the two party system can bring about positive change. All we need now is a 2nd party.

The Democrats were finished when they ran Wilson. The Republicans when they ran Wendell Willkie.

11
posted on 01/11/2014 12:32:45 PM PST
by Count of Monte Fisto
(The foundation of modern society is the denial of reality.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.